Michael Mann caught telling a 'porky' to the court (again) in legal filings

After being caught out claiming he was a “Nobel Prize recipient” in his original complaint (then having to retract it), it seems Mann and his lawyers just don’t have the good sense to know when to stop. In this case Mann has been “hoisted by his own petard”. His very own words condemn him. Again.

Steve McIntyre writes of a find by CA regular, Jean S.:

In Mann’s current Reply Memorandum (using identical wording to the January 2013 memorandum), Mann accused CEI of trying to “obfuscate”, claiming that the “misleading” comment had “absolutely nothing to do with Dr. Mann, or with any graph prepared by him”, that the “misleading” comment was directed only to the WMO 1999 graphic, in which Mann had no involvement:

In their brief, the CEI Defendants suggest that the University of East Anglia’s investigation actually found that the hockey stick graph was “misleading” because it did not identify that certain data was “truncated” and that other proxy and instrumental temperature data had been spliced together. See CEI Anti-SLAPP Mem. at 16-17; NRO Mem. at 35. This allegation is yet another example of Defendants’ attempts to obfuscate the evidence in this case. The “misleading” comment made in this report had absolutely nothing to do with Dr. Mann, or with any graph prepared by him. Rather, the report’s comment was directed at an overly simplified and artistic depiction of the hockey stick that was reproduced on the frontispiece of the World Meteorological Organization’s Statement on the Status of the Global Climate in 1999.41 Dr. Mann did not create this depiction, and the attempt to suggest that this report suggested an effort by Dr. Mann to mislead is disingenuous.

CEI had raised both the WMO 1999 and IPCC 2001 diagrams, but Mann ignored the finding in relation to the IPCC 2001 diagram (where he could not dispute his association) and fired back only on the WMO 1999, claiming with faux outrage that Mann had had nothing to do with the WMO 1999 and was merely an attempt to “obfuscate” – a somewhat ironic accusation given the massive misrepresentation of the inquiries by Mann and his lawyers.

Now Climategate emails (especially CG2) showed that Jones had corresponded with Mann in the preparation of the WMO cover and that Mann had signed off on both Jones’ splicing of proxy and instrumental records and Jones’ truncation of the Briffa reconstruction. So Mann’s outrage seemed pretty stretched.

But Jean S has found something even more damning. In Mann’s own CV, Mann lists himself as a coauthor of the WMO 1999 diagram 🙂 :

Mann’s claim that the WMO diagram “had absolutely nothing to do with Dr. Mann” stands exposed as yet another porky by Mann and his lawyers.

======================================================

Full story here: http://climateaudit.org/2014/09/10/another-porky-from-mann-williams-and-fontaine/

Mann’s CV here: Mann_Vitae (PDF) you can find the reference on page 15.

UPDATE: My check of the WMO website prior to publishing this story found no online version of their 50th anniversary publication. WUWT commenter John West finds the original cover art and citation from another source:

Front cover: Northern Hemisphere temperatures were reconstructed for the past 1000 years (up to 1999) using palaeoclimatic records (tree rings, corals, ice cores, lake sediments, etc.), along with historical and long instrumental records. The data are shown as 50-year smoothed differences from the 1961–1990 normal.

Uncertainties are greater in the early part of the millennium (see page 4 for further information). For more details, readers are referred to the PAGES newsletter (Vol. 7, No. 1: March 1999, also available at http://www.pages.unibe.ch) and the National Geophysical Data Center (http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov).

(Sources of data: P.D. Jones, K.R. Briffa and T.J. Osborn, University of East Anglia, UK; M.E. Mann, University of Virginia, USA; R.S. Bradley, University of Massachusetts, USA; M.K. Hughes, University of Arizona, USA; and the Hadley Centre, The Met. Office).

Richard Drake:
The issue is more clear-cut than you say.
It is not relevant which – if either – of the two statements is true. The important point is what Mann claims to be true in his own CV.
Mann is claiming damages because he asserts he has been defamed. It is not possible for Mann to be defamed by a statement of something Mann himself proclaims in his own CV: the statement is merely repetition of – and agreement with – Mann’s claim of his true fame.
At best, Mann’s refutation of his own CV is not relevant to his legal case.
At worst, Mann’s refutation of his own CV is an attempt to mislead the Court.
Richard

Thanks Richard. I certainly agree that the claim he’s been defamed in regard to the cover figure for the WMO 50 year anniversary in 2000 now fails. But Mann’s credibility more generally also fails, because he’s told a porky, in one or the other place. I doubt I’m the only one looking forward to hearing Mark Steyn on this one.

Richard Drake:
It seems that you and I are in a united party celebrating our agreement.
I, too, await Steyn’s response. On the basis of his past writings and actions, his response could be very amusing (for all except Mann).
Richard

I haven’t seen in the post or following comments any reference to why Dr. Mann brought this case. In the interest of fairness, here in his own words. ” there is no question that Defendants’ assertions were false, and Defendants do not even attempt to argue that their statements about Dr. Mann were true. They have accused him of “academic and scientific misconduct,” “data manipulation,” “molesting and torturing data,” and “corruption and disgrace”—all the while gloating in a disgraceful comparison to Jerry Sandusky, a convicted child molester who worked at the same institution that employs Dr. Mann. And they made these statements knowing that Dr. Mann’s research has been reviewed repeatedly and replicated by other scientists, and that Dr. Mann has been repeatedly exonerated: no fraud: no misconduct; no molestation; no corruption. Importantly, Dr. Mann brought this lawsuit not to squelch public debate, but rather to protect himself against those who have recklessly accused him of fraud and misconduct.”

matayaya says:…Dr. Mann’s research has been reviewed repeatedly and replicated by other scientists, and that Dr. Mann has been repeatedly exonerated: no fraud: no misconduct; no molestation; no corruption.
In the immortal words of Miss Mandy Rice-Davies:Well he would say that, wouldn’t he?
To this day Mann has refused to disclose all of his data and methods, including his “censored” ftp file. How could his work have been replicated without full transparency of all data used, and data rejected?

matayaya
Thankyou for that. The thread needed some levity, and your quotation of Mann’s excuse for bringing the case is really, really funny.
I especially enjoyed your saying you were introducing the quotation of Mann’s words “in the interest of fairness”. It was a bit cruel but nobody can doubt that exposing Mann’s mendacity is always just.
Again, thankyou for the laugh. I enjoyed it.
Richard

Matayaya. Mann was NOT compared to Sandusky; rather the processes which cleared Sandusky and Mann were compared. A totally different matter, I am sure you will agree, comparing processes to comparing people. Best to check carefully what Mann is up to before shooting from the hip on his behalf. He’s slippery, and then some, is the self-proclaimed Nobel Laureate.

Hmm, Lying on ones CV is considered professional misconduct, for a scientist that equates to scientific misconduct which substantiates the Steyn Case. Remember Steyn only has to establish that it was reasonable for him to hold the belief that Mann was guilty of misconduct, he does not need to prove that what he said was actually true, although that would be a nice outcome.

Interesting that the figure (http://nichol.as/papers/wmo913.pdf) is not just Mann et al.’s work, but includes two other data sets showing essentially the same thing. In other words, this is not about the science, but an ad hominem attack on Mann.

Ah the gift that keeps on giving….. Ben M. do some research, the data sets are spliced and real data is omitted. The graph is a fraud, yet you still believe it. The real data shows a steep decline at the end, yet it is omitted to mislead you into thinking and believing that it means something that it does not. This is a fraud.

Theyt relied on each other’s work. I believe the recent data set was prepared by Briffa from tree rings and Mann used it for his work. If memory serves either WUWT or JoNova had an article on how the rapid rise at the end of the graph was based on one tree in Russia. They make much of the fact that different studies produce the same results without showing where the data comes from; it comes from the same source.

Mann is a litigant in a lawsuit that he initiated. If this qualifies as an ad hominem attack (and I contend that it does not), then it is one which his own willful act initiated. Your “poor li’l Dr. Mann” face slapped himself – get used to it.

Ad hominem being a favourite approach of Dr. Mann. Ref. Judith Curry for starters. Indeed, Ms. Curry notes that if Mann’s case is succesful, then she would have a case for defamation against him. She then notes, bless her (and I’m a Brit), that that is not the American way.

Ah now, I do like to be fair–even to a notorious serial liar like Dr. Mann. One of the major graphs in that report cover is from Dr. Mann as is very clearly shown. It makes sense for him to list that in his CV. This does NOT mean that he was the one to perpetrate that hockey stick or its coverup.
Then again, Climategate made it quite clear that he was indeed consciously involved in the fraud.
And I have noticed a few papers from him in the years since–always with a hockey stick graph, proving McKittrick (I think it was) correct when he said Mann’s statistical methods would always produce a hockey stick. A scientist does not have to understand statistics very well to be competent, but he does have to use them correctly one way or another.
To me, Mann is not a scientist.

I have to agree. Just because someone is listed in the credits as a data source doesn’t mean that they had anything to do with the creation of the diagram.
One doesn’t need to stretch for things in these cases, the proof will be handed over on a silver platter. 😉

What exactly is the “fraud” of Dr. Mann? The hockey stick is a composite of ice cores, lake deposits, corals, tree rings and direct observations. The time line is long so it smooths out. Mainstream science still says the warming over the past 100 years is unprecedented. Independent studies have shown no fraud at East Anglia, the science was certainly not affected. So, where is the fraud? You guys just don’t like the message.

matayaya says:The hockey stick is a composite of ice cores, lake deposits, corals, tree rings and direct observations… So, where is the fraud?
Can you read? Ladylifegrows reminds you that Mann’s algorithm would always produce a hockey stick shape. That scary ‘hokey stick’ was the basis for the UN/IPCC’s publications — until Mann’s Corregendum in the journal Nature. Since then the IPCC no longer uses Mann’s hockey stick chart. And they loved that chart! It perfectly supported their ‘carbon’ scare. Why would they stop using it, if it was legitimate?
Then there is the Tiljander fraud. I say ‘fraud’ because Mann was told by Ms Tiljander before he published that her proxy was no good. She had found that the lake sediments had been overturned during construction of a road and bridge decades before, so that the older sediments were on top and the more recent sediments were deeper down.
But Mann used the Tiljander proxy anyway because it gave him another hockey stick shape, which had been so beneficial and lucrative to him before.
This case is not up to me. But I see that as fraud. How do you see it? How else can you see it?
[For a more complete rundown on the Mann saga, http://climateaudit.org is worth reading.]

As I recall, in the tale of Pinocchio, telling lies doesn’t merely cause the lad’s nose to grow. He also starts to turn into a donkey and very nearly gets sent to work as a donkey in the salt mines.
Part has already happened, and part I hope for, concerning Mr. Mann.
When one tells a whale of a lie, eventually that whale swallows you.

His lawyers are in serious danger of being sanctioned for having violated the DC Rule 11 of Civil Procedures, wherein statements of fact in a pleading must be backed by evidence that can be produced in a deposition or in court.
The Nobel thing was not essential to the pleading. This is. It is plainly false, show able now three ways: Climategate, Mann CV, WMO 99.

I’m not a lawyer, but I watch a lot of them on TV. This sounds pretty much on par with legal wrangling. It may be something they put out knowing Steyn’s team would waste time and money on it. Mann’s strategy seems to be delay, delay, delay.

The “serengeti effect” is obvious here. The zebras line up back to back creating a disorienting set of protective lines to the lions looking for a standout to attack. The one that sticks their head out is the one the lions go for.

Mann is fighting for his salary his pension his career and his life.
Understand this: we joke about his unemployability as a scientist if his reputation is destroyed or AGW becomes totally debunked…he has to face the reality of that… Some shambling wino in a Manhattan doorway clutching a bottle of industrial alcohol and mumbling: ‘I was a world famous expert in climate change, once’ as he sits looking at the snow and muttering ‘it can’t be there, it can’t be there’…..

On the cover page of Mann’s Curriculum Vitae, it states:
” 2007 Co-awarded (along with several hundred other scientists) the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize for involvement in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (lead author of chapter 2 of the Third Assessment Report, 2001) ”
It almost looks as if the section ” (along with several hundred other scientists) ” was an afterthought.
Since in his original filing of his lawsuit he claimed to have received the Nobel Prize, I wonder what earlier versions of his Curriculum Vitae stated about his involvement with that 2007 Nobel Prize? Is there any way to see earlier publications of his Curriculum Vitae, especially from 2008 onward?

… also at https://www.facebook.com/MichaelMannScientist/posts/437351706321037
Michael E. Mann
23 October 2012 · :
“Dr. Mann is a climate scientist whose research has focused on global warming. In 2007, along with Vice President Al Gore and his colleagues of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for having “created an ever-broader informed consensus about the connection between human activities and global warming.
Nevertheless, the defendants assert that global warming is a “hoax,” and have accused Dr. Mann of improperly manipulating the data to reach his conclusions.
In response to these types of accusations, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the National Science Foundation and seven other organizations have conducted investigations into Dr. Mann’s work, finding any and all allegations of academic fraud to be baseless. Every investigation—and every replication of Mann’s work—has concluded that his research and conclusions were properly conducted and fairly presented.”
Is it a post modern Mann made science thing to refer to oneself in the third person?

It’s interesting that the “swiftboating” of Mann continues years after many other independent paleoclimate studies essentially reinforce Mann’s initial premise. I guess it is easier to single out one to swiftboat instead of going after all of them.

You sound hopelessly stupid. I saw an interview tonght with the Pakistani girl, Malala, who was shot in the head by the Taliban for encouraging girls to get an education. I recall H. L. Mencken saying from the 1920s Scopes Monkey Trial: “This old buzzard, having failed to raise the mob against its rulers, now prepares to raise it against its teachers.” Attorney general of Virginia Cuccinelli in going after Dr. Mann’s email essentially said to him to not venture down the path of inquiry or you’ll pay with your reputation and career. It is amazing that with the full frontal astroturf campaign against him from all the front men of Koch and Scaife that he held up as well as he did. If the science is of good quality, no amount of trash talk can bring it down.

matayaya
I could not care less what you claim to “think” I “sound”. I doubt you have heard me sing, and your claim to be able to “think” is refuted by your comments in this thread.
You are attempting to defend the indefensible.
Read the replies from all the different people who answered your earlier attempts to defend Mann. Please take especial note of the facts from Ladylifegrows and dbstealey who explain some of what the despicable Michael Mann has done.
Michael Mann is at best an incompetent scientist and is certainly a nasty little man. His so-called science has been repeatedly discredited and in several ways for several reasons. His response to those who laugh at him, at his appallingly bad science, and at his behaviour is to sue them with law cases that cost the sued a fortune but Mann avoids bringing to trial.
Despite your silly arm-waving, I am not aware of Michael Mann or anybody else being assisted by “Koch and Scaife”.
Importantly, I am disgusted that you would raise the name of the courageous Malala (who campaigns for truth and education) in the same sentence as the execrable Michael Mann (who made veiled threats at me for pointing out an obvious error in his ‘hokey stick’ graph).
Richard

Philjourdan, I haven’t followed the court case closely but it seems to have the usual complexity of legality. I would not be surprised if it got thrown out as the constitution leans toward letting people say just about anything, no matter how stupid or inflammatory.
But, it’s a leap to pile all the other stuff on this case that you just did. This case is not about climate science or how the climate science community is or is not supporting Mr. Mann. That is not at issue. What this is about is the denialist community continuing its 15 years jihad toward one of the standout scientist of our time. Avery Harden

Wah, wah, wah! Stop whining. I heaped nothing on you. I pointed out you do not have the courage of your convictions. And I could not care less if you have been following the trial. (in which case the adage of shutting your yap comes into play).
Apparently whining is the only thing you are good at. Fine! Do not expect to be taken seriously since you have no clue what you are talking about – as you just admitted.

Ooh! A childish ad hominem! Wow, I bet a “so’s your ma” is coming next!
Stop whining and grow up! The world is full of cowards that do not have the courage of their convictions. That does not make you special. Just a coward.

matayaya,
“Swiftboating” is right. Kerry was swiftboated — his fellow sailors almost universally pointed out that his Purple Heart medals were unearned. That he was a self-aggrandizing fakir. That Kerry took staged videos of himself for propaganda and political use when he returned.
John Kerry was a charlatan. His Winter Soldier testimony was a series of provable lies. He does not have an honest bone in his body.
So yes, Mann is being “Swiftboated”. He is being exposed for the charlatan he is; very similar to John Kerry. Thanks for using the correct term: Swiftboating. Mann is getting Swiftboated, and he richly deserves it.

“Swiftboating” is merely ACCURATE and TRUE “peer review” by the politician/scientist/military’s actual peers who (in Kerry’s case) were actually with him overseas during those 78 days he spent in Vietnam – before leaving to go into Massachusetts politics back in Boston at the Senator’s office.
By volunteer and un-sponsored/unpaid peers of the politician/scientist/military who were NOT deliberately selected by unseen editors operating in private with unseen comments, “recommendations”, suggestions, and “corrections” before publication. Which is WHY the liberals hate true “peer review” in public: They cannot control who is chosen to make comments, and CANNOT censor the comments from publication!)
… So, matayaya: Do you prefer instead the national press corpse only promote “pal reviews” by sympathetic reporters mindlessly and numbly (dumbly ?) repeating what the democratic party press releases want them to release? Oh, wait. That IS what the CAGW emails DEMANDED of today’s so-called “scientific journal” editors!

I cannot believe that the great “Nobel Laureate” Michael Mann would lie! His hockey stick was the icon that Al Gore used in his “Inconvenient Truth” and the basis for the BBC’s cheerleading!
What is the world coming to! What next – the polar bears are not extinct? – – the ice caps haven’t melted – Santa Claus is not real? What a scarry world!

The “Tooth Fairy” is a horrible lending racket foisted off on children too young to enter into contracts. When I was a child I got a quarter for a tooth that came out naturally, maybe a half dollar. Nowadays I’m expected to pay hundreds to get rid of a tooth with considerably more personal inconvenience involved.
No one told me I was only borrowing Tooth Fairy money! Who would borrow money with such ruinous interest rates?

No, no, no! Not “porkies”. Dr. Mann simply “short centred” evidence prior to his Reply Memorandum.
And the IPCC 2001 diagrams ending up in a “CENSORED” directory? Just an accident, an oversight! You simply must believe Dr. Mann, after all he’s a climate “scientist” and a Nobel laureate!!

Mann brings personal insecurity to a new level. He is amazingly thin-skinned, taking umbrage at any perceived slight, yet his tweets are non-stop rants against “deniers”, “denialists”, “anti-science” scientists, and similar insults against anyone having even a small difference of opinion.
I think he is like that because he knows he is a charlatan who did not earn his high position in the climate world. He did it mainly on the basis of MBH98&99, which produced his repeatedly debunked hockey stick chart.
The guy knows he gets no respect from either side. All he did was fabricate useful propaganda for the rent-seeking IPCC. His trial is being turned into a sideshow by the inimitable Mark Steyn, who appears to be having loads of fun with it.
This movie is just getting started, and it’s getting better with every court filing.

Mann was always this way in graduate school. Everything was a conspiracy to him and he argued with everyone about everything. For example, he believed the local ice cream shop was forcing people to buy bigger ice cream cones because the sizes listed were child, medium, large. He said adults who wanted a small would be forced to buy a medium because they would not want to order a “child” for themselves. So he would harass the poor teenager working the stand that he wanted a small and the teenager would get confused and mayhem would ensue, mayhem that Mann would create, with a line of people forced to wait on this nonsense.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissistic_personality_disorder
I had legal dealings with one such, as a result of exposing his misdoings to his fellow professionals. I might as well have poked a nest of snakes with a stick. Watching the Mann case proceed reminds me very much of what I witnessed. Challenge a narcissist and watch them go.

Being a “public figure” does not invalidate a pleading for libel; it just makes it more difficult to prove in US courts. But actually winning a verdict is not necessary, and most likely was never Mann’s goal. As Mark Steyn has observed, in US civil actions the process is the punishment. Successfully defending a libel suit entails a six-figure bill for attorneys and experts, not to mention years of your time living under worry and stress. If you can inflict that kind of pain on your critics, most of them will shut up.
Fortunately for all of us, Mark Steyn is not “most of them”. You can support him here Stick it to the Mann with a modest donation in the form of a gift certificate you never use. And he is entertaining and educational to read.

Being a public figure requires a showing of actual malice as well as falsehood, so such a finding causes most cases to be dismissed in my experience as an attorney. Where is Mann getting the money to keep these cases going?
He also faces the possibility of sanctions or attorney’s fees, especially in Canada.

If the court starts to appear to act “against” him in his eyes, and he indulges in the kind of ranting against the court that he does towards skeptics, he may very well find himself facing contempt charges. His lawyers must be as worried. His behaviour can paint a great big bull’s eye on them. Typically lawyers in cases like this take their client’s word on the truth of the situation. They expect the client to fully inform them of information is relevant to allegations made to the court. I would expect a motion to exclude at least the climategate emails due to their questionable sourcing – the original “release” is of questionable legality, and Mann can simply deny he ever wrote anything in them. However the defense doesn’t need the CG material. Mann has uttered enough publicly to cause no end of difficuties. The civil process is never fun, and rarely “civil.”

Sorry! Page not found or not available or bookmark lost
WMO website
The page you are looking for might have been removed, had its name changed or is temporarily unavailable.
Make sure you have typed the correct page address in the address bar.

The WMO, a United Nations agency, 404’d their own home page.
‘Nuff said.

Link to test:http://www.wmo.int/
Right-click open in new tab at 5:28 AM EDT:
Home page still 404.
Shift-Ctrl-r (forced reload overriding cache) at 5:30 AM EDT:
Still 404, Not Found.
Allowing wmo.int JavaScript, disabling AdBlock on that page, reloading at 5:33 AM EDT:https://www.wmo.int/pages/index_en.html ?
Did some testing, peeked at the 404’d page’s code. There is an automatic JavaScript redirect in place to take you to the other page.
If the JavaScript is not on, the “body” section says what looks like should be displayed, I guess, it’s all that’s in there:

<p class=”oldbrowser”>This site is optimized for IE or Firefox browsers recommended. Your browser does not support new web standards.</p>
Please <a href=”https://www.wmo.int/pages/index_en.html”>click here</a> to access WMO Web Site

This isn’t working, without JavaScript their home page goes 404 instead.
And all over I find web sites that are smart enough to know I have JavaScript off, that then either recommend or insist I turn on JavaScript to fully enjoy their site. This is the first one I’ve found that outright fails, with nothing for non-JavaScript visitors.
Isn’t there supposed to be someone maintaining their pages? Did the summer intern go back to their technical training school?

Kadaka, the page loads. Your claim of a 404 may only be true in your Internet connection/environment. It works fine for me.
As we’ve said before, if you want things to work, run a modern browser with the proper plugins installed/enabled.
I’m going to snip any further complaints from you (and others) about this since they are off-topic.

???? You mean because Manniacal’s lawyers take Dr. Doo Mann at his word?
Besides, Manniacal probably told the lawyers just to use the info on Manny’s facebook page and what the sks ‘special’ infants documented on their fan mann.

no, Mann is making his lawyers look bad
well they all make themselves look bad, because Mann tells porkies to his own attorneys, who repeat the nonsense to the court without first engaging in competent factual research
Wait, to express it most accurately, Mann and his attorneys all “look” bad because they “are” bad — incompetent lying charlatans

Hamlet is to travel to another kingdom accompanied by Rosencrantz and Guildestein who carry a letter for the king asking that king to kill Hamlet. Hamlet will alter the letter so that instead it asks the king to kill Rpsencrantz and Guildestein.
Hoist with his own petard — a petard was a bomb. Hoist means to lift up — or in this case blow the engineer into the air.
Originally a petard was a hand bomb with a fuse to be thrown at the enemy. But if you cut to long a fuse the bomb could be picked up and thrown back at the thrower — thus hoisting the thrower with his own petard.
An’t — Here this seems a contraction for — and not — with not meaning naught or nothing.
an’t shall go hard — and nothing shall go hard — Hamlet is saying he will appear to act calmly as if totally unsuspecting the treachery. He will not make trouble during the trip. Hard implies actual fighting.
But I will delve one yard below their mines — This is Shakespeare playing with words. Shakespeare was very fond of creating lines that had an alternate meaning if you were familiar with English dialects or foreign languages, particularly Latin.
One meaning is simply digging one yard under the engineer’s tunnel and planting a bomb.
But “mine” was a dialect spelling for “mien” meaning appearance or behavior — used a couple times by Shakespeare.
But I will delve one yard below — Without spending time in the library I can’t identify the phrase “one yard” but it probably is a phonetic spelling of another word — that made it easy for the actors, some of whom would be confused by a strange word. (In Shakespeare’s time “strange” was also used to mean “foreign” — so I am making a little double meaning word play joke of my own.) “One” is probably “un” and it is most likely a dialect word spelled “unyard”. (though it could be a Latin word.) Probably it means “unsuspected”.
An’t shall go hard but I will delve one yard below their mines == nothing will cause trouble but I will search unsuspected below their (friendly) appearances. That is basically what the line says in my opinion but I would have to sit in a good library for about a week to confirm or refute it.

i feel sorry for Michael, because when governments and supposedly august scientific bodies turn against this scam and they are certain to do, like all politicians and third rate scientists who end up politicking, they will look for a scapegoat, and Michael has been more than willing to offer himself as one.

Out of interest I followed the link to Mann’s CV. 26 pages. WOW. Now I admit that I’m not familiar with the academic world having spent my working life in industry, but when considering applicants for interview a 26 page CV would have been 1st in the bin. Are CVs of this size normal in academia or is Mann such a mega-star it needs 26 pages to tell us how great he is.

Are CVs of this size normal in academia or is Mann such a mega-star it needs 26 pages to tell us how great he is.

Found one quite similar, from someone else who does a lot of “climate change” research. Note the boasting about the grants. Refereed publications start in 1974, he’s been worried about “climatic stress” for a very long time. 24 pages, he did clip “Articles in Proceedings” after two pages with an “Others too numerous to mention.”http://phydatabase.med.miami.edu/documents/cv/Kalkstein.Laurence_135638_cv.pdf
If grants are that important in academia, maybe they should just tattoo size and length down their arms, simplify the boasting at parties by going sleeveless. Agree on a fixed maximum number of entries per arm, then see who gets to be first to wear shorts at formal events because they ran out of arm space and had to start going up their leg.

One-page resumes are a very American thing. In the real world, a CV is much more common, and is expected to give a much more detailed account of not just the job title, but a reasoned account of what you did in each role, accomplishments and reference.
Of course, the average HR dweeb won’t like these, and they are certainly unsuitable for the automated filtering systems in common use.
Asking for a CV, and getting a competent one, is a much better filtering mechanism than HR and their automated systems. Rather than 10,000 responses, you will get 10, and they will be high quality, and from people that are motivated and articulate.
Probably not suitable if you are looking for a burger-flipper, which unfortunately, is how most employers see most jobs these days.

PhilipPeake September 11, 2014 at 6:49 am
One-page resumes are a very American thing. In the real world, a CV is much more common, and is expected to give a much more detailed account of not just the job title, but a reasoned account of what you did in each role, accomplishments and reference.
So, when you get 120 replies to an engineering position, each of them 20+ pages long, how many months do you spend reading through them, in the “real world”? Or you only get one resume in that said “real world”? Or do you make speed reading a requirement for HR positions?
I assume that either there are no people looking for a job out in that “real world”, or nobody hiring anyone they not already know.

In Academia, the CV is part of the tenure application process. Those folks actually expect to read a book in a CV. If all those grants, speeches, presentations, papers, and courses aren’t in the CV, the person simply will not pass tenure.
The fun part is with applicants for positions. They like to tailor the publications part of the CV to the perceived philosophy of the school, forgetting that the librarians are likely to do a literature search on them and present a complete publication list to the hiring committee before the applicant arrives. The individual’s contrary views as represented by their research sometimes helps them, but usually torpedoes them.

Aye.
Even two page submissions were considered onerous by reviewing committees; I’d read the first page word for word, look at the second page and decide ‘insufficient or further review’.
Especially when whittling applicants down to a final three or five; if the applicant can not state their case effectively on the cover page we didn’t consider them competent for a serious position, perhaps an internee but definitely not a career position.

I actually accept resumes that are longer than 2 pages, though I will never read past the 2nd. If you don’t convince me within the first 2, oh well. Mine is a paragraph over 2, with some patent/publication fluff in the final paragraph (which is largely irrelevant, IMO). Rarely do I see resumes longer than 2, quite frankly.
Mark

I too was impressed, mightily impressed ….. at first. Then I got to thinking how incredibly busy this guy has been, teaching, lecturing, collaborating, writing, consulting with lawyers, flying around the country, finding a new house, mentoring, doing research, reviewing papers…….Did he even have time to sleep?
In some way, for some reason, this lengthy CV doesn’t doesn’t seem realistic to me. Perhaps I simply don’t understand academia.

CVgate. The pattern repeats itself of the hockey stick team basically led by Mann, pushing more and more brazen lies, hoping general corruption, careerism and fear of retribution will protect them from whistleblowing. Finally it’s in a court of law though, the likely end of the line! That Mike is trying to distance himself from “Mike’s Nature Trick” that is used to hide a contemporary proxy decline is itself quite telling. His lawyers can’t be happy about this, for it shows they lack independent advisers, who happen to be freely available via blogs. Though so I hear Mann’s lawyer was formerly involved in supporting the Tobacco industry, so perhaps they are used to serving up junk science. Mann may yet turn Steyn into a multimillionaire, though I’m not sure Mann is personally worth the amount of debt he may be put into due to the twenty million dollar counter suit that is suddenly looking much more ingeniously lucrative though Mann’s own doubling down on deception. His Facebook is that of The Hockey Stick in bright satanic red, as he narcissistically revels in attacking his foes. Given how many people support him, the little man was at least really big for a little while.

” 2007 Co-awarded (along with several hundred other scientists) the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize for involvement in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (lead author of chapter 2 of the Third Assessment Report, 2001) ”
————————————————————————
If that is on his current CV, it is incorrect. The Nobel Prize people have said that no individual who worked for the IPCC can claim to have been awarded (or co-awarded) the Nobel Prize. If he is still claiming this, he is still perpetuating the porky he has already been publicly rebuked for.

Isn’t that the same figure that Mann uses on the cover of his own book? But now he claims he had no input in constructing the graphic.
What I find amusing is that when you go to the Amazon page for Mann’s book, the arrow on Amazon’s “Look Inside” link points right at the part of the graph where the “incorrect” drop in proxy temperature was deleted and the “correct” adjusted instrumentation graph was added in to give it the needed hockey stick shape.

Apart from the obvious thrust of this piece, as a ‘mere’ Brit I am heartened by the use of the expression ‘Porkies’ – an abbreviation of ‘Porky Pies’ meaning lies, which of course has its roots in Cockney rhyming slang…
Mann is of course a ‘Proper Charlie’ (that’s Charlie Hunt – work the rhyme out for yourselves…)

The assumption being that Dr. Mann actually wants his suit to proceed to trial. Without any trial he’s still financially punishing his targets, while he’s supported in his quest by his victimhood status (and outside financial support). So without going to trial, he keeps on “winning” without proving anything. Looking bad with his legal team being less than honest? Why should he care … he’s “winning”.

Deepest pocket approach will work until the judge has a sense of humor failure due to the repeated untruths being provided by one legal team. At that stage the entire suit may be thrown out. Leaving Steyn’s suit in place with the large gift of the repeated untruths.

Isn’t the real problem that Mann et al are living in a fantasy world? Fantasy theories, fantasy solutions, fantasy results and misery results when the real world has to be acknowledged. We are witnessing the fantasy world suing the real world for having the audacity of not abandoning the messy imperfect and adopting the fantasy. “Oh we are off to see the wizard…….”. How are the Munchkins doing this week?

I personally think we shouldn’t use sland, weird terms or obfuscating language to describe this. It is not a porky, or a fib. It is a lie.
Mann lied. Mann is a liar.
We have proof, we can clearly state it because it is established as a fact. Michael Mann is a liar. Plain and simple.

His CV Nobel Prize comment is still completely wrong. He claims he was co-awarded with hunders of authors when the IPCC have stated this. Clearly he is still willing to distort facts to serve his own ends.
The prize was awarded to the IPCC as an organization, and not to any individual associated with the IPCC. Thus it is incorrect to refer to any IPCC official, or scientist who worked on IPCC reports, as a Nobel laureate or Nobel Prize winner. It would be correct to describe a scientist who was involved with AR4 or earlier IPCC reports in this way: “X contributed to the reports of the IPCC, which was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007.”

As a graduate of the Meteorology Department of Penn State, I have been contacted many times by both students and employees of the university to once again give money to the department. Just yesterday, I was visited by an employee of the department. We had a great chat about old times at PSU but I made it very clear to this person that as long as Michael Mann was still employed there, they would not receive another penny from me. Her response was, “I have heard that said before”. Let’s hope that soon they will get the message.

As a lowly Biology graduate at PSU, I have consistently told them the same thing. The little bit of “science” I did there with parasitic wasp activity when in contact with its host, far and away trumps any science he has ever done. I was meticulous, curious, unbiased and, well, “scientific” in what I did. I earned my A for the work and learned many valuable lessons.
My convictions are diluted somewhat by the contributions to the Track/XC teams I faithfully make. But the University gets nothing else until Mann is gone. And I’m sorry cjames, they will never get the message.

Good for you both. I made the same point last year to my own alma mater concerning their tenured hire of Naomi Oreskes. They have stopped flying down to visit yearly while I bought them lunch. And even the solicitation phone calls and emails are fewer now.

A key point about this particular porkie is that Mann makes a big deal in his court papers suing Steyn that the panels “exonerated” him, but one of the British panels called the WMO cover page graphic “misleading” and bad practice–not exactly an exoneration.

Hello,
Just to be clear, are we completely sure that we are talking about the same publications? It looks to me that WMO 1999 may actually be different from WMO 2000. From the reference name alone, it seems like they are different publications, published in different years. Is it the same, nevertheless? If it is not, do we at least know for sure that the same graph was shown in both, and therefore if Mann was coauthor in the graphic shown in WMO 2000, then he can be accused of being a coauthor as well in the 1999 one?

Mann seems to have a certain consistency with others of his mindset.
You’ll recall that Barak Obama conveniently forgot his CV (author’s bio for his book) wherein he described himself as Kenyan born.
What’s with people who “forget” that they have maintained rather important positions in their lives that later become “inconvenient”?

You know, I’m always a little uncomfortable with technical threads like this one with its terms-of-art like “porky” and everything. I mean, like, I’m always just a little apprehensive that the nuances of the language will elude me. That sort of thing. But my “take-away” from this blog-post is that MM has just been caught out flat-footed in some sort of big, fat, what-an-ass!, pantalon-flambe fib-booger, big-time. Hope I got that sorta right, at least.
P. S. I really liked the anecdote-comment, above, about the ice cream cones. Good stuff!

Steve McIntyre (in his CA blog post ‘Another Porky from Mann, Williams and Fontaine’ Sep 10, 2014 at 2:44 PM) said,
“But Jean S has found something even more damning. In Mann’s own CV, Mann lists himself as a coauthor of the WMO 1999 diagram 🙂 :”
. . .
“Mann’s claim that the WMO diagram “had absolutely nothing to do with Dr. Mann” stands exposed as yet another porky by Mann and his lawyers.”

– – – – – – – – – –
I googled ‘porky’. It can be taken as a reference to some kind of British rhyming slang, namely, ‘porky pies rhymes with lies’. But, the word porky can also be taken ambiguously in other slang related contexts. So, why not be unambiguous / explicit if someone meant to simply say that Michael E. Mann (director of the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University) and his lawyers were lying ?
On another thought, I take as a reasonable premise that Michael E. Mann (director of the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University) knows when his own and his lawyers statements are incorrect / false. That is the crux of his self-created mythology where he is the hero. His self-serving mythology is that his side is on an earth saving crusade justifying that it is OK to say anything, including incorrect or false statements, to further the crusade.
John

further to my earlier post of September 11, 2014 at 5:03 am above: https://www.facebook.com/MichaelMannScientist/posts/437351706321037
“Dr. Mann is a climate scientist whose research has focused on global warming. In 2007, along with Vice President Al Gore and his colleagues of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for having “created an ever-broader informed consensus about the connection between human activities and global warming”.
this is now archived at https://archive.today/hI21O

Anthony said to ‘Phil.@September 11, 2014 at 10:43 am’,REPLY:” . . .This sort of herd mentality you exhibit that a science peer needs a higher level of proof that he’s told a porky than the average person is exactly what is wrong with institutionalized science today.
. . .”

– – – – – – – – – –
Anthony,
That kind of institutionalized / academic mentality was a major reason why the PSU academic committee investigating some apparent questionable professional behavior of Michael E. Mann (director of the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University) was intellectually incompetent and why it showed a profound lack of respect for basic concepts of integrity known in our general culture.
John

So, who are the “peers” of Micheal Mann who approved of and “validated” his many claims in his many press releases (er, “scientific papers”) and requests for more funding for Penn State and his CAGW peers?
Oh – Wait! We don’t know “who” does ANY of the “peer-reviewed” so-called “scientific journals” …. They are ALL anonymous invisible, but highly talented and mythically-endowed seers of all-knowledge, known but to a few self-selected editors of a few journals.
Those are the people enabled with control of the world’s energy future. And, of course, they are not only invincible, but are ethically unchallenged and morally pure in all regards.
/sarchasm – That yawning hole between a liberal and and the real world

Hi Phil,
While what you say is true, that WMO only recognises Mann’s contribution to the graphic by providing data, what matters here is what Michael Mann says himself in his own CV. In his CV, he puts himself as one of the authors of the cover, and does so with pride (or else, it would not be part of his CV). Once he has done that, he cannot claim that UEA’s finding that the cover was misleading cannot be used against him. UEA’s investigation found the cover misleading. Mann considers himself one of the authors. Proof exists that he participated in the creation of the cover with more than just the data. There’s nothing more to add to the case, veredict is clear: Mann’s claim that he had nothing to do with the cover is a very obvious lie.

Yes really, we are talking about a court of law.
I’m not blind nor trying to save Mann, if he makes a stupid remark then he can take care of himself. I don’t know where you get the idea that he’s a hero of mine.
You said:
“And here is the cover:
50th-anniversary-WMO-913-cover[ UPDATE2: WMO link (h/t Barry Woods) to that 50th edition – https://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/wcp/wcdmp/documents/913_en.pdf ]
Without question, this is Mann’s work, from the document, the citation on page 2, bold mine:”
That was what I was referring to.
” It doesn’t say: “Dr. Mann was a partial contributor”, or “only the blue line by Mann””
Actually that’s exactly what it does say, the cover explicitly says that the blue line only is due to Mann et al., and the second page says were the data can be found.
As I said to prove that he produced the cover you need more.
“This sort of herd mentality you exhibit that a science peer needs a higher level of proof that he’s told a porky than the average person is exactly what is wrong with institutionalized science today.”
No, he should get the same level of proof, the cover itself does not meet that standard.

this is such a dumb ‘error’ on Mann’s part – especially since we now have the WMO document to hand now..
might his lawyers just say – settle!
this is much, much worse than his nobel prize claim, it is about the actual science, and the issues right at the heart of climategate emails.
ie even IF he won in court, dragging out all these ‘errors’ through the court would just be really embarrassing..

Barry, he cannot settle.
Steyn separated himself from the CEI/ NR litigation (SLAPP defense) and has counter sued for lots of damages to Steyn’s reputation as a result of this. even of CEI wins their appeal, the Steyn countersuit goes forward. Contribute to him, so that this goes to discovered and Mann’s blatant falsehoods to the court become indelible legal records.

‘Mann’s claim that the WMO diagram “had absolutely nothing to do with Dr. Mann” stands exposed as yet another porky by Mann and his lawyers.’
That’s not quite what the Reply Memorandum says: ‘The “misleading” comment made in this report had absolutely nothing to do with Dr. Mann, or with any graph prepared by him.’
The memorandum is referring to the ‘misleading’ comment by the investigation committee, not the WMO graph. The memorandum goes on to say: ‘Dr. Mann did not create this depiction…’
That may well be correct. The supporting text to the graph that is being displayed says: ‘Sources of data’ followed by the names of the contributors. The data sources did not necessarily create the graph.

That’s not quite what the Reply Memorandum says: ‘The “misleading” comment made in this report had absolutely nothing to do with Dr. Mann, or with any graph prepared by him.’
The memorandum is referring to the ‘misleading’ comment by the investigation committee, not the WMO graph. The memorandum goes on to say: ‘Dr. Mann did not create this depiction…’
That may well be correct. The supporting text to the graph that is being displayed says: ‘Sources of data’ followed by the names of the contributors. The data sources did not necessarily create the graph.

1.
The memorandum is on behalf of Mann and (as you say) says, “Dr. Mann did not create this depiction…”
2.
Mann’s CV claims he was a co-author of the graph so must have contributed to it and approved it.
I am not a lawyer so may be unaware a legal interpretation of those two statements, but to this layman there does seem to be a dichotomy between them; i.e.
Mann’s CV is an assertion by Mann that he at least created part of “this depiction” and approved all of it but the later memorandum on his behalf says he “did not create this depiction”.
Can you please explain the matter for me and any others who may share my puzzlement.
Richard

Richard Courtenay: ‘Mann’s CV is an assertion by Mann that he at least created part of “this depiction” and approved all of it but the later memorandum on his behalf says he “did not create this depiction”.’
The CV listing may simply mean that Mann provided the data, not that he created the graph. That’s not the same thing as an ‘an assertion’ that he (part) created the graph.
This is legal stuff, so there’s probably a lot of parsing going on. But that goes all ways, including your own inference about what the CV is claiming.

Brendan H
Thankyou for your explanation.
Your reply is helpful but does not remove my confusion. I am asking you for exposition of your point because I am trying to understand.
Please note that I am not a lawyer and I am not an American so I am very probably failing to recognise issues of American law and culture. Hence, it may not be possible for me to understand the point you are making, but I am making the attempt.
You tell me

The CV listing may simply mean that Mann provided the data, not that he created the graph. That’s not the same thing as an ‘an assertion’ that he (part) created the graph.

OK. But logically
(a) provision of the data is a contribution to creation of the graph
and
(b) citation of the graph as part of his CV is a claim that “he (part) created the graph” and he claims responsibility for that part.
I am NOT claiming those logical deductions are the same as American legal interpretation. I am asking in what way – and why – a legal interpretation could differ from those irrefutable logical deductions.
You say “That’s not the same thing”.
I don’t understand how and why it’s “not the same thing”.
And i am asking you to help me to understand how and why it’s “not the same thing”.
Richard

Happily, we can hope and even expect that a court of law will bother to untangle Mann’s web of lies. But in the court of public opinion? I transcribe only one side of an actual conversation with a randomly-selected man on the street (for fun, try to guess the questions be asked):
A: “Yes, I heard 97% of experts agree, so I believe climate change is a real problem.”
A: “Who’s Michael Mann?”
A: “What’s a tree ring?”

Look at what’s being claimed: “Northern Hemisphere temperatures were reconstructed for the past 1000 years (up to 1999) using palaeoclimatic records (tree rings, corals, ice cores, lake sediments, etc.), along with historical and long instrumental records. The data are shown as 50-year smoothed differences from the 1961–1990 normal.”
Now look at the vertical axis of the graph.
The claim is being made that by using paleoclimatic records as described, anomalies can be determined for a thousand years ago down to hundredths of a degree.
Has this not seemed (let’s be polite) implausible to anyone involved in all of the arguments about this graph?

So the question then becomes, will the judge view this as yet another attempt by plaintiff to perpetrate a not academic but legalistic fraud on the court?
Another question is, are Mann’s lawyers fed up with him yet? Has he misled them once too often?

I read the blurb on the pdf file about the front cover. For whatever reason, there are blanks randomly inserted in the text, which look ugly in monospaced font. Here is my attempt at cleaning it up, hopefully catching all the spaces…
==================================
Front cover: Northern Hemisphere temperatures were reconstructed for the past 1000 years (up to 1999) using palaeoclimatic records (tree rings, corals, ice cores, lake sediments, etc.), along with historical and long instrumental records. The data are shown as 50-year smoothed differences from the 1961–1990 normal. Uncertainties are greater in the early part of the millennium (see page 4 for further information). For more details, readers are referred to the PAGES newsletter (Vol. 7, No. 1: March 1999, also available athttp://www.pages.unibe.ch) and the National Geophysical Data Center (http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov).
(Sources of data: P.D. Jones, K.R. Briffa and T.J. Osborn, University of East Anglia, UK; M.E. Mann, University of Virginia, USA; R.S. Bradley, University of Massachusetts, USA; M.K. Hughes, University of Arizona, USA; and the Hadley Centre, The Met Office ).
==================================
Note that it does mention that temperatures were reconstructed using, amongst other things, tree rings and instrumental records. Would this be enough CYA if someone questioned the veracity of the data he contributed, given the splicing of tree-ring and instrumental data in his hockey stick? The fornt cover itself mentions “Annual from Mann et al. (1999) Geophys. Res. Lett. 26, 759”. Does that paper mention the splicing? If not, it could be embarressing, especially in light of Climategate and “hide the decline”. I don’t think there would be any direct legal consequences from that, but it could hurt Mann’s credibility on the witness stand, and every little bit helps.
You know what following this fiasco on WUWT reminds me of? Reading Pamela Jones’ “Groklaw” blog during the course of SCO’s attempt to establish its ownership of linux.

May I urge a little caution? It is possible that there are two distinct documents. One is the 1999 WMO Status of the Climate report, published in 2000. Another is WMO 50th-anniversary report on temperature changes in the past millennium, also published in 2000. I have a copy of the former but cannot find the latter. Can anyone point me to a link? Until we can be sure that the graph in the latter is indeed the same as that in the former, it may be advisable to take care in what we say here.

You can’t find the other one as it does not exist. This is the figure that was being discussed in the infamous trick-email, and the picture was already in my post about the trick along with a link to the actual report. They originally discussing it in this ClimateGate2 letter 0191.txt. From there you can see how Mike got his reference. As usual, even in this small matter he had to “spice it up” a bit.

Thanks Jean S. Now I have it clear. For me, this text in the ClimateGate2 letter proves that it is the same publication:“There will be a press release in Geneva on Dec16 – they need two weeks
to approve the text internally. The full text of the report is then printed
during Feb 2000 – last year’s was 12 pages long. It will be released on
March 15 in Geneva to coincide with WM (World Met) day and the 50th
anniversary celebrations of WMO as well”

So, as Prof. Muller notes, science and humans are messy. In spite of that, the temperature record showing unprecedented warming over the past 100 years still stands. Also, the “decline” does not refer to a “decline in global temperature”. It actually refers to a decline in tree growth at certain high-latitude locations.

matayaya:
“Unprecedented” warming? Only if you cherry-pick a particular time frame like 100 years. The planet has been up to 12ºC warmer in the past, with no ill effects… and some folks are worrying about a 2º rise.
Show me how the recent temperature fluctuations are anything other than natural climate variability. The *very* minor, 0.7ºC wiggle in temperatures is extremely minor. It is even questionable whether current instrumentation can accurately measure changes that small over 100 years.
By using a normal, one-degree chart instead of the somewhat preposterous tenth and hundreth of a degree scales, we get a normal record produced by NADSA/GISS:http://suyts.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/image_thumb265.png?w=636&h=294
Tell me: are you still scared? Really?

Also, the “decline” does not refer to a “decline in global temperature”. It actually refers to a decline in tree growth at certain high-latitude locations.
You’ve missed the point. If the thermometer record and the tree ring record depart from one another over a period of decades, representing 1/3 or more of the thermometer record, and there is no explanation for this, then the tree rings cannot be considered accurate for the centuries prior to the thermometer record. Hiding the decline is really hiding that fact that tree rings are nearly useless as a proxy for temperature, and AR3 and AR4 conclusions are nearly all derived from this obviously useless data. That’s what is really being hidden here.

Explain the word “hide”. There is no plausible accounting for the choice of that single word except to signal a clear intention to deceive. Taken together with other expressions of these “scientists” to hide the data upon which their olympian pronouncements were erected, that clear intention is persistently sustained.

“hide”, that is from an email (stolen) written by Phil Jones of CRU. It’s a bit technical, I don’t fully follow it; but perfectly innocent. It was not referring to recent warming as you all insist. It’s something to do with tree ring density data after 1960 that should not be used to infer temperature. Overall proxy data ended in 1980 so no reconstruction could occur after that. The reconstruction to that point stands regardless the tree ring data.
The bottom line is that AGW theory stands based on many other studies and much empirical evidence unrelated to the hockey stick. The obsession with the personality of Mann is a tactic to distract from the complexity of the actual science.

“stolen” or leaked?
And it was about hiding a decline in the proxy values post 1960. They were not following the temperatures.
Which means:
A. Proxies did not follow them before 1960
or
B. The “team” manipulated the temperatures post 1960 to show an increase that is not real.
In either case, it is devastating to the cause because it shows that Mann’s hokey stick and all those hokey sticks were created with data that does not fit the model.

No, only the tree ring proxy data after 1960 was excluded or “hidden”. Proxy records stop around 1980 and instrument records take over. All the other proxy data was just fine. Lots of studies in the public record on why the tree ring data was not used after 1960. No conspiracies.

You agree with me and then do a big butt. So you are wrong.
If the proxy data is wrong with accurate information, how do you determine it is correct with no information? Simply put, if you cannot track temperatures NOW with tree rings as it does not match, what evidence do you have that it ever did?
So your stupid statement about “all other proxy data is just fine” is hogwash!
And I mentioned no conspiracies. That is just a strawman on your part.

If you overlay the temperature instrument record from 1880 to 1960 with the tree ring proxy data of that period, you get a pretty good match. That’s the way proxy data works going back further using ice core, lake sediments, tree rings, coral, stalagmites, historical data, etc.. If you overlay it and see confirmation of a trend, then you have something useful. No single proxy data by itself can be conclusive.

Richard: ‘Please note that I am not a lawyer and I am not an American…’
Me neither, so we’re on a level playing field there.
‘citation of the graph as part of his CV is a claim that “he (part) created the graph…’
It could also mean he contributed data but was not the graphic artist.
‘And i am asking you to help me to understand how and why it’s “not the same thing”.’
I will use what I think is a useful analogy. In this post I have used some of your words as part of the creation of my post. But my use of your words in this post is not the same thing as your use of your words in your post.
In your post, your words serve to make certain assertions and ask questions. I am incorporating your words into my post for different purposes, ie to respond to your assertions and hopefully answer your questions.
Therefore, even though the words I quote are identical to the words you use, they are not ‘the same thing’ because I am using them for my purposes and the context has changed.

Exactly, apparently the cover graph was prepared by Tim Osborne using the data from the three papers cited on the front page. The decision to use that as the cover page was made by WMO, Phil Jones had a vote, Mann was not present.

dbstealey: ‘Is Mann’s name appended? If his name is attached to the document, then he owns it.’
Not quite that simple, especially when it comes to collaborative projects such as publishing. For example, the policy for WUWT says, ‘You are responsible for your own words’, but also that posts are moderated for various reasons.
When WUWT celebrates a success, the various parties are acknowledged.
So it’s a two-way street.
And of course there’s also the matter of presentation, which can be argued forever.

Brendan,
Well, that’s a stretch. It’s not the same thing at all. If someone is posting here, it’s like their own separate little publication. That’s why they are responsible for what they post.
As Bob Kutz says below:For him to now make a claim to the court that he had nothing to do with it is completely disingenuous.

Interesting to note that his own CV doesn’t even state the correct WMO publication. His CV states ” 50 Year Anniversary Publication: Temperature changes over the last Millennium, 2000″ but a quick review of the publications themselves shows his (attributed) cover was the 1999 edition, copyright 2000.
The 2000 edition has a cover showing a globe mostly depicting the antarctic with a UV index overlay. It is copyright 2001. This edition clearly refers to it’s status as the 50th anniversary edition, with a logo on the cover that shows 50, 1950 and 2000. The image on this cover is attributed to the Norwegian Institute for Air Research. His name does not appear in this document. At least not in the searchable contents.
Not only does he disavow the contents of his own CV in court filings, his CV makes factually untrue assertions. Is it really so difficult for him to get any single thing right?
Now, in all fairness, the 1999 edition’s forward, by someone named G.O.P. Obasi, mentions the 50th anniversary in the first paragraph. That doesn’t make his CV true. In fact, it doesn’t appear as though any of these documents contain the language “Temperature Changes over the last Millennium”.
Is almost as if there has to be a different WMO document than the ones I am looking at? Seems odd that his name and graph appear on one document so similar to what his CV claims if there’s another document out there that could easily be confused. If there is, I don’t seem to be able to find it online and Steyn’s website seems to think I have found the right document.
Regardless, Mann’s CV refers to the cover of the 2000 (50th Anniversary) document, his work appears in the 1999 edition, which clearly includes his work on the cover and attributes the image to him within the document itself. It is incorrect.
Even when he has no reason to lie, it seems he simply cannot get the truth right.

Sorry Lord M and Nylo, seems I’m a bit late to this party.
But it seems my thoughts were accurate. As to the notion that there is some difference between ‘they used his data to produce a simplified version that was inaccurate’ and ‘his graph’; that completely disappears when you take note that the document itself attributes the work to him and the cover is specifically listed on his CV.
For him to now make a claim to the court that he had nothing to do with it is completely disingenuous. For that to be true, he’d need a letter to WMO asking that they remove his name from future printings of the publication (disavowed the work) and he would have to tacitly deny the work by omitting it from his CV.
It’s inclusion thereon is his blessing.
Game, Set and Match, Dr. Mann.

dbstealey: ‘If someone is posting here, it’s like their own separate little publication.’
The law has yet to catch up with the legal status of blogs, so your claim in that sense is premature.
More importantly:
• The blog publication process includes the selection of guest articles
• Guest authors are expected to adhere to the blog publication policy
• Some guest articles are amended by the publisher
• Some comments are deleted; some comments are amended; some comments are subject to comment by the publisher or moderators
• The posters’ articles and comments are their own words
This suggests that the publication process is a collective enterprise, with expectations and privileges on both sides.
‘As Bob Kutz says below:
‘For him to now make a claim to the court that he had nothing to do with it is completely disingenuous.
It’s not clear from the comment above what ‘it’ is referring to. As I pointed out previously, the ‘it’ in this case relates to a claimed ‘misleading’ comment.

Brendan,
I would not be skeptical about Mann or his motives, except for the fact that he has shown himself to be a disingenuous self-promoter when it seves him, but he runs and hides out when it doesn’t. If this paper helped Mann, he would be the very first to claim ownership of it [whether true or not; witness his claim that he was awarded the Nobel Prize].
Character is destiny. Mann’s character is catching up with him.

For permission, contact us. See the About>Contact menu under the header.

All rights reserved worldwide.

Some material from contributors may contain additional copyrights of their respective company or organization.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on WUWT. If you continue to use this site we will assume that you are happy with it. This notice is required by recently enacted EU GDPR rules, and since WUWT is a globally read website, we need to keep the bureaucrats off our case!
Cookie Policy